No. 6713-02L | Tax Ct. | Jan 7, 2003
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">4' document="" https:="" label='2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">4 ' number="1" pagescheme="<a href=">2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*4 Respondent's motion to dismiss and to strike granted.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction And To Strike, as supplemented. Respondent moves to dismiss and strike as to the taxable years 1991 and 1992 on the ground that petitioner was not issued a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) for those years. As explained below, we shall grant respondent's motion, as supplemented.
Background
On January 20, 1996, respondent served the City of Philadelphia with a Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other Income in an effort to collect taxes due from Janice Bullock (petitioner) for 1991 and 1992. On May 15, 1996, respondent served Corestates Bank with a Notice of Levy in a further effort to collect taxes due from petitioner for 1991 and 1992. On April 3, 1997, respondent issued to petitioner a Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy regarding her unpaid taxes for 1991 and 1992. On2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">5' document="" https:="" label='2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">5 ' number="2" pagescheme="<a href=">2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*5 April 24, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner a notice that respondent had applied $ 1,027.79 of taxes that she overpaid on her Federal income tax return for 1999 to taxes remaining due for the taxable years 1992 and 1993.
On November 29, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner a Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing with regard to her unpaid taxes for the taxable years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. On December 26, 2000, petitioner filed with respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. Petitioner subsequently attended an administrative hearing at respondent's Appeals Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On February 19, 2002, respondent sent to petitioner by certified mail a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">6' document="" https:="" label='2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">6 ' number="3" pagescheme="<a href=">2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*6 As indicated, respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike as to the taxable years 1991 and 1992. Respondent contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction with regard to 1991 and 1992 on the ground that respondent has not issued to petitioner a notice of determination with regard to those years. Respondent avers that the notice of determination dated February 19, 2002, on which the petition is based, pertains only to the taxable years 1993 through 1996. Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion, attaching to her objection copies of the notices of levy for 1991 and 1992 that respondent served on the City of Philadelphia and Corestates Bank (described above).
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions session held in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and offered argument in support of the motion to dismiss. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. Following the hearing, respondent filed a supplement to his motion. Petitioner failed to file a response to respondent's supplement as directed by the Court.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">7' document="" https:="" label='2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">7 ' number="4" pagescheme="<a href=">2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*7 only to the extent authorized by
The record in this case shows that, in 1996, respondent served notices of levy2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">8' document="" https:="" label='2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">8 ' number="5" pagescheme="<a href=">2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 4">*8 on the City of Philadelphia and Corestates Bank with regard to petitioner's unpaid taxes for 1991 and 1992. Inasmuch as these collection actions were initiated well before the effective date of RRA 1998, it follows that we do not have jurisdiction to review those matters in this proceeding.
The record also shows that, on April 24, 2000, respondent applied petitioner's overpayment for 1999 to offset petitioner's unpaid taxes for 1992 and 1993. Although respondent initiated the offset after the effective date of RRA 1998, respondent's application of a taxpayer's overpayment for one taxable year to offset the taxpayer's liability for another taxable year does not constitute a collection action that is subject to review under
In sum, we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss and to strike, as supplemented, inasmuch as respondent has not issued a notice of determination to petitioner with regard to any collection action for either 1991 or 1992.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be issued granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike, as supplemented.